Google, Apple, and AT&T

Okay so the threesome has been in the news quite a bit lately.

At first, over the rejection (or apparent rejection) of google voice from the Itunes AppStore.

Second blow, was probibly the FCC pushing net neutrality; which is heavily google backed.

Finally, AT&T's complains about Google Voice and call blocking.

I've read quit a few postings on the third; and it's becoming more and more aware that the President's comments about the blogosphere being too much option and too little fact is honestly ... true. As these blog's that wear the face of news, don't actually seem to have their facts strait... or do they.

Well, point of order #1. Google voice actually doesn't compete with TelCom companies; at least for now. Google's got no infrastructure, they require customer's to keep existing telephone lines, not replace them.... are they really a service competing with AT&T, when the service that AT&T Provides is a prerequisite.

That would be like writing a check to HBO, and expecting your TV to work. Sorry, it simply doesn't work without you paying your cable company. Just like Google voice won't work if you don't pay your telephone company.

In fairness to AT&T, the second google figures a way around 'needing' an existing phone line... they are now a competing services and should be on a level playing field.

Until that day, things are not equal.

To back up what google said, in reguards to the current telephone connection fee that large companies face... I think something does need to be done about this.

But SERIOUSLY... 'Adult Servies'... that's your major complaint.

Maybe you need to introduce these people that cost you so much money to the internet. Where billions are women are willing to take off their cloths for money.

To give an old phrase a disturbing new meaning ...

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Apple, telling you what you want.

Well, it's been a while since I wrote anything... but I've been brewing over the recent apple developments centering around their iPhone.

Apple,s in the middle (of what I hope) is a very valuable lesson for them. As time goes on Apple's more benevolent image transforms into that of a bully. Conjuring a picture of Steve Jobs as the gatekeeper for what can and can not be on the iPhone.

Sorry Steve, but people have a funny way of determining themselves what they do and do not want on their phones. Besides I thought you guys would have more sense then to make more drama in the middle of an DoJ investigation. But I guess the DoJ just wasn't enough ... you needed to get the FCC involved.

Anyways, back to the matter at hand.

Apple's been very used to their users simply accepting what they get... and given the mental state of the average apple user. I'd be surprised if they didn't personally write letters to the company thanking them for making choices for them.

However, as it turns out ... people as a whole don't enjoy getting told what to do.

As it stands right now, my iPhone is in serious jeopardy of getting dropped before my contract is up. Simply because i don't want to have to hack my phone to get it to do what I want. (Granted it's not all that bad; as I've got a jailbroken phone)

Every time you look around there's another app that get's rejected, with little to no reason outside of 'apple said so'.

The most recent thing that's been irking me is Apple's handling of Google. It does take some balls to attempt to push around a company the size of Google. Rejecting the Google Voice (which is a totally awesome service) combined with telling them to make Google Latitude a 'web' app... seems flat out stupid.

By denying Iphone users the capability to use these services; all your doing is making android that much more attractive to me.

You're just not that good...

Okay, in the vien of the recent movie He's Just Not That Into You. I present you with today's MMO Rant... You're just not that good...

The Customer is Always Right.

Honestly, while this is a fairly decent PR stratigy, it's quite honestly the biggest falsehood. More often then not the customer is infact wrong. It's just easier on everyone to let them think that.

Now everyone and their brother, has a very micro vision of this when it comes to MMOs. Usually this centers around their class being under powered, and some other class being over powered (more commonly then not this is the people that kill them repeatedly).

Now, if you're going to go around saying that the customer is always right... well what happens when two customers contradict each other? Well, you very well can't give them both what they ask for.

While relivent, customer oppion shouldn't be a primary motivation for changing things. Why, simply put everyone wants to kill everyone else, and never die. Which brings me to my next point.

There's always a bigger fish.

People need to realize that there is always someone better then you.

Not only that but there's a natural balance in the form of rock paper scissors when it comes to these games. It's not a perfect balance, someone might have a bigger rock, or thicker paper... but the principal is generally true.

There's so many variables when it comes to the results of combat... perhaps the biggest part of that equation is more often then not the player behind the keyboard.

In the interest of balance, the death to kill ratio should be around 1:1 in an ideal world. But well, there's also a ton of factors. Going on the assumption that your opponent is at most your equal, is honestly hugely egotistical of people.

What these people want is not balance, but a means to stroke their ego (feel free to replace this with E-peen)

What do you know about game design?

Seriously, everyone and their monkey's brother's uncle is painting their idea as some kind of ingenious original thought that will solve 'the problem' ... whatever that problem happens to be.

Some of these ideas are truely the needle in the haystack or a diamond in the rough.

However, more often then not they're simply ... well faulty. That's not to say that there's not a portion of the idea that's good. However, more often then not changing one thing in a possitive manner in advertantly changes another thing in a negitive one.

Making an ass out of you and me...

When it boils down to it, everyone's whinning post always make some sort of sweeping assumption.

The assumption usually boils down to this simple one, the company must want the game in this condition, the only reason for such things would be if they are gaining some side benefit from it.

Okay, let me tell you right now... any game development company (and their money grubbing publishers) would rather be rich then stroke their own egos, they leave the ego ( / epeen) stroking to the players. No game developer would in their right mind destroy game balance simply for a few kills in an online game. Since it would be professional suicide. I realize that all the basement dwelling 20-30 year olds out that, don't grasp the concept of a 'career' and 'profesional responsiblity'

Idiots usually call for dramatic change that often over compansates for imbalance.

Take for example, bright wizards... by far one of the most over powered classes in the game right now. Players want them beat with a nerf bat till their nothing more then a zippo.

(before you go assuming I play one myself, I've got a Sorceress, Disciple of Khaine and Archmage that I play)

Now that will achive the goal of diminishing the BW popluation, that's for sure. However, there's a certain portion of the class, that actually likes the class for the class... and you've just hurt them.

Granted a portion of the BW class, will simply move onto the next most powerful class (which will then be over populated)

Contemporary Art... Perfection or Pretentious

Well, a while ago I saw the movie Mona Lisa Smile.

To make a long story short, while in her art history class, the main character asked the class what would future generations say about them when they looked back at their 'Art'. She used advertisements as example.

Now this was spurred by a web site that my girlfriend stumbled upon yesterday. Basically it's a modern art museum contest each year. This year one of the contestants decided to go ahead and take great works of art, by great artists and take the infamous designer's 'Red Sharpie' marker to the images. ( See for yourself here )

Basically, the short of it, is that if the very artists who inspired some of the greatest art movements of our time were subjected to what designers are subjected to on a daily basis... there's a very good chance the art world would be different, perhaps very different. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? I honestly don't know. I'm no where even close to being in a position to give an opinion.

However, much like the main character from Mona Lisa Smile, we will be judged by future generations on our culture by the art we create. Of course, that isn't just limited to pictures...

Pictures, music, writing, movies hell you could even consider things such as video games a work of art... is the red marker that pretty much everything has to go though to get out to the world a good thing, is it a bad thing.

Do we embrace conformity to standards to the point that the creativity will be beaten out of us... and all we'll be left with is an endless cycle of copy cat artists who wouldn't know an original idea if it hit them on the head.

There comes a time when we need to move on from what works today, and start to develop what will work tomorrow.

Remember, achievement is always balanced by drawback.

You can't have good without bad. So what happens when you remove all the bad? Are you left with only good, or are you left with nothing?

There's No Box ...

Okay, it's been an annoyance that I've had to tolerate for far, far too long.

It's not that I've got a problem with what they are trying to do, it's that I've got a problem with the whole line of thought.

If you've any level of cooperate experience, you've heard the phrase 'outside the box'.

Now upon hearing this phrase, there's two logical questions that one usually asks.

1. What's the box?
2. Why do we need to go outside of it?

In most cases, the box represents either a product, or service. Long and short of it, the box usually is a 'standard' product that a company offers.

Now why do we have to go outside of it, well that's simple. In order to make money we've decided to do something that the 'box' we previously had didn't encompass.

After we're done going outside of the box, we then box up the out of the box process, and we've got ourselves a whole new box. Then the process starts all over again.

Now, we get to the funny part ... if you're going to constantly be going outside the box... which will lead to the creation of new boxes... why even have a box at all?

Probably the best example of the 'box' is Microsoft's, not so recent release of Windows Vista. In XP there was two boxes. You had a home box, and a business box (aka 'pro') , eventually these boxes got expanded out to include Media Center, and Tablet PC... but in reality they were just spin offs of XP home with some special features that were 'out of the box'.

Now comes windows vista, and we've got 6, yes 6 boxes. Home Basic, Home Pro, Business, Enterprise, Starter, and Ultimate.

Now I certainly do appreciate the fact that you don't want to charge your customers for features they don't want and/or don't use.

But let's face it, by box up things, you've only managed to box yourself into a corner.

It's something that I've see all too often in technology, is this over use of boxes, buckets, and other enclosed objects that are used to describe rigid services, and products.

At the end of the day, the reality of the situation is ... the box doesn't exist.

After all the fast food industry learned this a long time ago.

While a good portion of the population enjoys, ketchup, mustard, onions and a pickle on their cheeseburgers. By refusing to remove them, you loose customers. After all, that's where burger king's "have it your way" slogan came from ... poking fun of the fact that McDonnald's had the whole one size fits all ... burger going on.

Anyway I think I made my point about a paragraph or so ago ... I hate the box, I really do. They have their uses, but by far and large they hurt more then the help.

Bored Lawyers, or Idiot Consumers? You decide.

Okay, so there's been an on going lawsuit, surrounding Windows Vista.

Here's the high level summery.

Back when windows vista was coming out, computers had two certifications ...

'Vista Ready': This basically implied that the computer could run windows vista.

'Premium Ready': This basically ment that the computer could run the more demanding Vista Home Premium/Ultimate

The fallout, happened when Microsoft released windows vista. Specifically, Windows Vista Home Basic, where the OS is striped of alot of the more flashy features (mainly the Aero-Glass interface). So what the claim is, is that Windows Vista Home Basic, is infact NOT windows vista. 

This all started 2 years ago. 

The recipients of 'Vista Ready' computers, were pulling together a class action lawsuit, claiming that microsoft mislead them with the 'Vista Ready' labels they stuck on the computers.

Anyways, today, the Class Action status got defeated (this however still allows the consumers to pursue lawsuits individually.)

Now we get to the -REALLY- stuid part.

This is all stemming from someone not happy that their $500 computer, they purchased 3 years ago can't run Windows Vista Home Premium. 

So instead of paying out another $500, to get a new computer which -can- run Home Premium. They instead decided to sue Microsoft, a lawsuit which has gone on for two years now. With the class status defeated, it sounds like the suit itself is going down hill. 

So my question is, $500 for a new computer ... or 2 years of lawer fees? 

Not sure who's the idiot, the lawyer(s) with too much free time, so they took the case hoping to get a % of the winnings. Or the client, who actually thought it would be better for them, if they sued microsoft, instead of spending the $500 to get a new computer. 

(and yea, for the record... I can build a computer capable of running vista ultimate for around $300)

Idiots...

It's been recently brought to my attention that I've got the diplomacy of an ICBM(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missle). In short, I'm what people in my company refer to as a 'strait shooter', I've little patience for politics. 

Everything I do has a purpose, and reason. And while, the execution is sometimes, flawed... the reason seldom is. 

In short, I've got a nasty habbit of going about things the wrong way... to take a spin on a quote my father used alot when I was growing up ... It's not what you do, but how you do it. Okay so maybe that dosn't translate as well as the original 'it's not what you say but how you say it'. 

Anyways, this is in reguard to the 'diplomatic' process of a community I help to manage. 

It's been slowly coming to my attention that there's something wrong with the community. The community was originally founded with 6 moderators, one of them being myself. 

Over the course of time some came and some went, now we're left with 4 day to day moderators, two of which were originally there to being with. Myself, and another person, we shall call person X. 

The dynamic that is going on, is one that's got me a little bit concerned... overall. 

Firstly, Person X has been the public face for the community since it's creation for the most part.  They have a very empathic personality, and have a burning desigher to make sure everyone's happy. 

Over the course of these two years, this person has formed a bubble in which to deal with problems.  Basically, she interacts with the users... and presents the problem to the rest of us. 

She then usually handles the resolution as well. 

It's easy to see both how and why this bubble formed. However, when people start questioning the fairness of the moderation staff it makes me scratch my head a little bit. 

Maybe it's hyperbole, but yet again maybe there is something to it. 

Combine that with the fact that of the four main moderators of this community, she recruited 2 of them. 

And while I don't want to think about it, the idea that there's a clique in the moderation staff infuriates me to no end. 

My biggest problem, is what to do? 

If this clique does exist, and we've got 3 moderators who are willing to back each other to the end... what am I to do?

How can I justify doing nothing? ... How will I convince them, that -they- maybe a part of the problem. 

As the saying goes, between a rock and a hard place.